https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/12/29/trans-national-security-agency-us/

https://archive.is/4Ipvu

A trans employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) is suing the Trump administration over its anti-trans executive orders and policies, which the employee says violate federal civil rights law.

Sarah O’Neill, a data scientist at the intelligence agency, has disputed the legality of Executive Order 14168, which was signed by Donald Trump in January following his return to the White House for his second term and stated that the US would henceforth only recognise “two sexes, male and female” and these are “immutable”.

The executive order, titled ‘Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government’, claimed so-called “ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex” have “used” the law to “eradicate the biological reality of sex”.

Trump went on to state his administration will “defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male”.

Donald Trump has signed a series of anti-LGBTQ+ executive orders since becoming president.

O’Neill’s lawsuit, which was filed at the U.S. District Court in Maryland, says Trump’s executive order “declares that it is the policy of the United States government to deny “Ms.” O’Neill’s very existence”.

Mr O’Neil “exists” as a man LARP’ing as a woman. This isn’t an identity, its a toxic behavior that has no reasonable expectation of tolerance in the workplace

(He) said since the executive order was signed (his) workplace has revoked its policy recognising (him) as a trans person and (his) “right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment,” whilst also “prohibiting (him) from identifying (his misgendering) pronouns as female in written communications” and “barring (him) from using the women’s restroom at work”.

O’Neill believes the order contravenes Section VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on characteristics such as race and sex, and its later amendments which included gender identity and sexual orientation.

Sounds like the law needs to be amended, like Iowa did… its untenable over the long-term

In 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled on three cases where it concluded existing provisions under the 1964 Civil Rights Act also apply where “an employer fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender” – simply put, the court ruled LGBTQ+ people are protected against employment discrimination at the federal level.

How exactly would your employer know you are gay or trans unless you advertise it inappropriately in the workplace?

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his legal opinion at the time: “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

The Gorsuch goes on to elaborate on his implausible hypothetical scenario

“Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman.

“If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.

Or… consider the implausible scenario where an ordinary cis het man decides he needs to womens restroom from now on out, presumably just to annoy the women…

And is fired for being a degenerate asshole

In this scenario, he is simply doing what every woman at work does. So why should he be discriminated against

“Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalises a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth.

“Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.”

Maybe Gorsuch can explain why its OK to discrimate against every other man at the NSA who is routinely denied access to the womens bathroom?

The ruling went against Trump’s then-first term administration which intervened in the case to argue Title VII provisions should only apply based on the “ordinary meaning of sex” as either male or female and not cover sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Gender Identity” is a new concept, freshly cooked up by insane people, and we are expected to embrace the idea

O’Neill’s lawsuit argues, as quoted by the Associated Press: “The Executive Order rejects the existence of gender identity altogether, let alone the possibility that someone’s gender identity can differ from their sex, which it characterizes as ‘gender ideology.'”

No lies detected

“She” is seeking for “her” workplace protections and rights prior to the executive order to be restored alongside financial damages.